Just Because

18 June 2012

There’s a thing we say in our family: Just because….

It’s a something my brother Anthony used to say, when he was a boy. When in trouble, he would start to explain himself, “Just because I forgot my boots…” and burst, before he could say more, into tears of despair.

Our Dad thought it was hilarious, and it has since been adopted family-wide as shorthand for ‘sorry’. I forgot your birthday? Just because. Your present is late? Just because. It is, inevitably, a much deployed expression.

And today I deploy it myself, for having neglected to send my fabulous Dad anything for yesterday’s Father’s Day. Again.

Here he is (below) at the recent opening of Reading University’s Film TV and Theatre Building, named after Anthony. One can only imagine the pride and the pain of attending such an event; celebrating a son prematurely taken. Our Dad handles these things with dignity and, always, a joke.

He is responsible for many aspects of our family’s collective personality. We have inherited, extended, developed and downright copyrighted so many of his attributes. His pleasure in playing on words. His boyish, infectious humour. And we aspire to his unfailing, sentimental love; his willingness to question the status quo; his satisfaction in simple things – food, family, a pack of well-worn playing cards.

Whenever there was a gathering of the Minghella clan – there are a lot of us now (a plague of Minghellas? a rash? a canzona?) – Anthony used to turn to Dad, point to all the kids, partners and grandchildren, and say, proudly, “All this is your fault!”

Ah. It’s hard to imagine saying that nowadays. The family is incomplete. And that joke belonged to Anthony.

It brings a tear to the eye, but Dad has a line for crying too: “Why are you laughing on the wrong side of your face?” You’ll find that line all across Anthony’s work, and mine.

In a few days’ time, our wonderful Dad will be 91. I should send him something now.

Meanwhile, here’s to you, Dad. It IS all your fault, and I love you and thank you and – in case I do forget – just because.

Jack Davenport on Anthony Minghella

13th May, 2012

These memories of Anthony were written by Jack Davenport for a proposed book on Anthony’s work by Meghna Mudaliar. Many thanks to Jack and Meghna for permission to share them here.

The night I arrived in Rome to start work on Ripley, I met Anthony in an almost comically perfect family restaurant in Trastevere. He was so happy and excited to be setting out on what was clearly a labour of love in the most complete sense. The film would show his adoration of Italy, the home of his ancestors; it would be a meditation on how social exclusion can corrupt a sense of self.

My not-so-hidden terror at working with a man whose previous film had garnered nine Academy Awards evaporated almost instantly in his embrace. Literally. Ant was one of the most effusively tactile people I have ever met. He used touch the way other people use words. It is a measure of the gentleness of the man that his continual pummelling and kneading never felt like an invasion, but simply an extension of his not inconsiderable powers of communication.

My nervousness at working with Ant stemmed from the fact that he was the first true artist I had ever been directed by. I remember how alarming it was receiving notes from him on set. Often, the open-endedness of the emotional world one is trying to create, means that discussing variations in performance can be a relatively free-form discussion, almost a gentle negotiation. With Ant however, his note giving was positively laser-like in it’s precision. Much of this was of course to do with the fact he had written the script. It was a case of knowing the topography of his story so well that he knew exactly what he was after, at all times. Which is not to say he was bullying or domineering, he just directed with a clear-eyed exactness that was rare indeed.

Somebody told me early on in our rehearsal period for the film that my character, Peter Smith-Kingsley (who in the novel appears in only one scene), had become in Ant’s writing an amalgam of qualities that he most admired in people. I found this information frankly terrifying, but Ant put it to me slightly differently. He said that Peter was the only character in the story who was comfortable in their own skin, and it was this quality that attracted Tom Ripley. A big part of that attraction was also bound up in Peter’s profession as a musician. Music saturates the film, and is used by many characters to say things they cannot express themselves. Ant’s insistence that I learn to conduct the Stabat Mater piece and play the piano, was the greatest excavation tool he gave me for the character. He would give me beautiful selections of music to help me get inside Peter’s head. I’m sure Ant would have endorsed the Walter Pater quote about all art aspiring to the condition of music. Indeed, that idea seems to be one of the major themes of the film.

I remember a story Anthony told me about a gift he had been given one the first day of shooting by his editor, the great Walter Murch. Walter had presented Anthony with a lacquered box filled with tiny hand-tied scrolls, one for each day of principal photography. Each one contained an aphorism that Walter had chosen and written out. Anthony said he would open one at random first thing, and then ponder it while he stood in the shower. He told me how strange it was that whatever the scroll said, there would be a moment during the day’s filming where it’s sentiment would prove to be weirdly pertinent. I always thought you must be able to inspire friendship and loyalty of a higher order to receive a gift like that. I still get a kick out of thinking how much fun Walter would have got making those scrolls, and how much pleasure Anthony received every morning as he rolled ‘Professor Murch’s Thought for the Day’, around his head.

The last time I saw Ant, we bumped into each other on a bridge in Austin, Texas. I was shooting a movie, and he was in town to support his son Max at a film festival. He was so proud, and so easy in the role of not-being-the-centre-of-attention. It was an honour to know Anthony Minghella- he was a man of huge achievement who wore his success as lightly as anyone could. I miss him terribly.

– Jack Davenport, September 2008

Reading University

10.5.12

To Reading University, where – with pride, sorrow, pride – we attended the opening of the new (Anthony) Minghella Building for Film, TV and Theatre.

David Puttnam did the opening honours. Anthony would have been delighted, embarrassed, delighted.

Remembering Anthony

18 March, 2012

 

My amazing brother died on 18 March, 2008.

Here is the text of an article I wrote for The Telegraph shortly after Anthony’s death.  Four years later, I’m still holding my breath.

 

 

 

 

By Dominic Minghella

12:01AM GMT 23 Mar 2008

Throughout my life, at any time, day or night, the phone might ring, and there’d be perhaps a transatlantic pause, then the exquisite warmth of his voice. “Dom, it’s Ant.” And in that instant, all wrongs would be righted, all problems made soluble, all wisdom accessible.

He had a way like that, a way of starting a call that was specific to the relationship. He developed a shorthand with everyone he knew – and that was a staggering number of people – a separate, intimate language for each person.

He fell into it in the opening seconds of a conversation, so that you might not have heard from him in months, but immediately you were there, with him, picking up where you left off, more connected in an instant than most relationships achieve in a lifetime.

To be in his family, immediate or extended, was to exist in a state of constant readiness – for him to call or appear at any moment and to switch a light on in your life. It was a beautiful, vulnerable, blessed place to be. You gave him your heart, actually, and he carried it safely for you, brought it back enriched.

It sounds religious, doesn’t it? Maybe it was. Sometimes people come up to me with beatific smiles – and I don’t just mean since he died – and touch me, because they themselves have been touched by him. They sat next to him on a plane, or heard him talk in 1980-something, or saw Truly, Madly, Deeply and felt it was uniquely about them. And they think somehow in touching me, they’ll feel an echo of him, a splinter from the true cross.

I think it was always this way. I don’t think it is a rewriting of history to say that he was always special. Before he revealed himself as an artist, we adored him. Maybe we put it down, my siblings and I, to his being the eldest son in a Catholic, Italian family. He got the star treatment in the family, we thought, because of cultural tradition, rather than merit.

If, for example, he was leaving for university, or better still coming back, our lives would be arranged around those arrivals and departures. Our collective breath was always, somehow, held in his absence. I imagine it drove my sisters mad.

But I think we all knew pretty quickly that this was more than some cultural hangover. He found his niche at Hull University, and began to write plays that were extraordinary in their insight and observation. He wasn’t just the first-born male. He was gifted.

And so it has been ever since – a life spent mesmerising all comers. He used to talk about film directing as hoovering up images. But he hoovered up people, too. Not cynically, but with infectious excitement. He could not pass a migrant office cleaner without discovering that she was also a Brazilian doctor, noted in her home country.

He found the gem inside everyone, and then could not contain his glee. Everywhere he went he acquired family, more folk like us who held their breath in his absence. Sometimes, on a movie, that meant hundreds of people in one sweep, crew members and players all, declaring their undying devotion.

Reflecting on it now, I am beginning to see that his charisma even outshone his talent; and his talent was breathtaking. His specialness predated his artistry, and it’s his personality that everyone is so painfully missing now.

The work remains, and of course we would have loved more of it. But what we’re really missing is him. As we come together to try to fathom this grotesque shock, what’s clear is that everyone felt entitled to a bigger piece of him than they managed to grasp.

For those of us who were waiting for his energy to dissipate, for his career to quieten down, for his attention to revert to us, the understanding that this is never going to happen is too much to bear. I for one would trade his legacy, his works of sheer bloody genius, for one more second with him.

But not to acknowledge his work would be to deny an essential part of him. Not just because the work was so brilliant and so personal, but because he was so devoted to it. He said he couldn’t bear to let a day go by without creating something, and he didn’t.

He was indefatigable. He worked like a dog all day, and when the hurly-burly was done, then he’d write. He was the most gregarious man I’ve ever met – but then also the most able to sustain himself alone, at night, writing. He claimed he was never happier than when he was by himself, working.

I used to feel that his devotion to work was also a function of our upbringing as, essentially, immigrants with something to prove. But I’m wondering now whether that, too, was a simplistic interpretation of what was going on. I remember asking him why he didn’t slow down after The English Patient, enjoy his success. He shook his head: “This is my time.” The truth is that his whole life was “his time”, and his journey was self-fuelling. The more he lived, the more he had to say, the more driven he was to find new ways to articulate himself.

At his daughter’s wedding, a month ago, we watched the young ones dance, their futures all promise ahead of them, and I said we were old now and it was time to withdraw, time for the next generation to step up and call the shots. I didn’t mean it, but he wouldn’t let it pass even as a joke. “No,” he said, “I feel so full of energy. I’ve got so much more to do.”

Those words would seem poignant if you really believed he was gone. But for those of us who loved him, for those of us who are used to holding our breath in his absence, it feels as if there is always the possibility that the phone will ring, and there’ll be that pause, and then the blessed relief as he says (in my case), “Dom, it’s Ant.”